Taking blood thinners and self defense

[ob1]

I don't think the OP is looking for a free get out of jail card, or a de facto license to brandish.

I can think of a number of medical conditions that could arise with an individual that would make them more susceptible to a physical attack and might skew the threat continuum in a persons favor. For example, those persons who have certain conditions such as enlarged vital organs or transplants. I have been warned by one of my physicians to avoid any physical activity that might result in a frontal torso trauma as it could result in a fatal organ rupture / hemorrhage.

It certainly would not be a bad idea to request documentation from your physician of any such warning and store it away for a rainy day, should the need arise to make it available for your attorney.
No need to lay out certain scenarios in your request, especially if you sense an anti-2A attitude from your Doctor (If you do, it's probably time to change Doctors anyway). Less could be more in this instance.

2 cents worth. Not an attorney, stone mason, or gynecologist.

 

[titsonritz]

It certainly would not be a bad idea to request documentation from your physician of any such warning and store it away for a rainy day, should the need arise to make it available for your attorney.
No need to lay out certain scenarios in your request, especially if you sense an anti-2A attitude from your Doctor (If you do, it's probably time to change Doctors anyway). Less could be more in this instance.

Then premeditation could be argued, an attorney can get the documentation should the need arise but I don't think I'd preemptively do it.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Be quicker on the draw than the bad guy, maintain extreme situational awareness.. above all.. avoid conflict if you can.

 

[ob1]

Then premeditation could be argued, an attorney can get the documentation should the need arise but I don't think I'd preemptively do it.

Which is why I note the importance of not laying out specific scenarios when requesting documentation.. I have directions from my physician which are generic....could refer to a future injury, limiting activity in an occupation etc. The letter is dated and maintained for use by legal counsel, as pertinent and deemed necessary. A previous or existing physical limitation is not premeditated.

 

[American123]

Because I take blood thinners I'm more susceptible to trauma than most. It's the reason my Doctors have told me not to participate in Martial Arts, mountain biking, rock climbing, etc. Is there any aspect of this where it changes the use of force from a self defense perspective for me, since being hit even once can be more deadly to me than your average person.

The common definition of justified use of lethal force does not have a long list of caveats where people with specific medical conditions have a different set of rules...

 

[bryon]

Because I take blood thinners I'm more susceptible to trauma than most. It's the reason my Doctors have told me not to participate in Martial Arts, mountain biking, rock climbing, etc. Is there any aspect of this where it changes the use of force from a self defense perspective for me, since being hit even once can be more deadly to me than your average person.

It's not just external bleeding the docs warn me about. It's INTERNAL bleeding they are most concerned about. Athletes like football players sometimes die after a tackle, due to internal bleeding that is not noticeable.

I've struggled with just a simple little cut on mu knuckle where bled profusely as if I had cut my finger off. I did this on a shower curtain rod while hanging it up...

I also suffer from nose bleeds now that are pretty bad. My INR is high, due to multiple unprovoked clotting attacks they like it thinner than the usual dose.

It is definitely something that worries me as far as being assaulted. What is a normal assault to some, is a much higher probability of killing me.

It's not just external bleeding the docs warn me about. It's INTERNAL bleeding they are most concerned about. Athletes like football players sometimes die after a tackle, due to internal bleeding that is not noticeable.

I've struggled with just a simple little cut on mu knuckle where bled profusely as if I had cut my finger off. I did this on a shower curtain rod while hanging it up...

I also suffer from nose bleeds now that are pretty bad. My INR is high, due to multiple unprovoked clotting attacks they like it thinner than the usual dose.

It is definitely something that worries me as far as being assaulted. What is a normal assault to some, is a much higher probability of killing me.

Tai chi

 

[FortRock]

Following chemo I have chronic A-Fib. Circumflex artery stint. Now on Plavix and Xerelto. Anything makes a big deep bruise and a small scrape can bleed for days. It is no joke. Would never use that as an excuse to engage in gun fight. I don't believe in "brandishing" under any circumstance. If it gets out of the holster, it will be going "bang". I am very careful now but still hike, fish, and hunt. Internal bleeding is a serious concern. A good punch could do it. WoundSeal is a good thing. Be safe.

 

[Andrew Brown]

Depending on the severity of your risk factors you may be completely justified in defence of yourself against eminent physical attack. Unfortunately, many uber- liberal anti-gun people don't believe you have the right to defend yourself under any circumstance and you put yourself at extremely high risk legally if you do.
Trial by jury is very precarious, and based upon my previous experience serving as a juror I believe it's very possible an overzealous anti-gun prosecutor could convince a jury that you overreacted resulting in you serving a prison sentence . This is based on my observations that many of the juries I served on had many people that weren't exactly the sharpest tacks in the box, easily swayed,driven by their own personal agendas or beliefs irregardless of facts or lacking common sense.in an urban liberal environment, odds are the jury that decides your fate may be filled many ,or even a majority , of these dimwits. Weigh the risks carefully and accordingly before taking action( not always possible when forced to make a split second decision to defend yourself from attack) as even though you may prevail and avoid being declared guilty, you are still sure to be saddled with the huge costs of your legal defense. My personal choice is I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 ( jury vs pallbearers).

^^^This^^^ in bucketloads.
Reading some of the replies you do have to wonder if some people do not understand how stacked the judiciary and legal system has become against lawful firearms/deployment. Sometimes firearms cannot be avoided but should be a last resort.
During "the troubles" and no I wasn't directly involved [although I was classed as a target] the green card was amended several times, each of which made it more likely that you would be hung out to dry by the legal establishment.
So I don't live in the States, but have a pretty good understanding what is going on. Unfortunately.

 

[Idahobound]

You can argue the merits and legal arguments ad finitem. It's just good everyone is conscience of the consequences anyone may face if and when they choose to defend themselves or others with an armed response whether that means brandishing the weapon or actual use of deadly force. All of that is a personal choice that we hope no-one is forced to make especially in some unexpected defensive circumstance. You will still have to recount your actions and explain why you took them whether it's to a sympathetic police officer or in front of some anti-gun jury and a malicious politically motivated prosecutor. Hope the choice you make was good and correct. As I have already stated, I have already made my decision based upon my physical risk factors,: I am 68 with permanent physical disability, I am frail and weak looking like a concentration survivor skeleton shell of a person because I was lucky enough to survive the cancer and struggle to keep 130 lbs on my formerly 200 lb frame, my severe blood condition requires extraordinary doses of blood thinners to keep my clotting time at a constant super level (not as a prophylactic small dose to lessen remote chance of a clot that might occur to due to some atrial flutter condition some people have and are treated for). In my case , it isn't whether I may be injured if attacked in a physical assault encounter, as there is absolute certainty I would not survive. My decision was a no-brainer unlike the decision many of you struggle with in how you would or should react in a similar defensive scenario. It matters very little to me whether the consequences of my actions cause negative reprocussions for me or whether anyone thinks my actions were justified when the alternative is to risk taking no action and face certain death. Trial by 12 is preferable than being carried by 6 pallbearers is my decision and I'm fine with that regardless of the outcome. Watching the recent films of senseless beatings bestowed upon individuals by the " peaceful protestors" in Seattle and Portland should be s real wake-up call for everyone that this could happen to any of us at anytime. Are you prepared for how you would react? I am.

 

[revjen45]

Having survived a fatal heart attack with concomitant neurological damage and subsequent cardiac issues, I would regard any serious physical threat as having a high potential for death or GBH. A punch to the head or chest could very likely kill me, and orthopedic injuries mean I can't run.
Recent events have shown that Soros/Dem DAs and AGs are on the side of the rioters, and any act of self defense by middle class White people will be prosecuted as a hate crime. THE LAW isn't there to protect the honest and productive, but to discourage any resistance to rule by the Mob. Any DGU would be used to justify riot and affray in addition to malicious prosecution.
I would do anything I could to avoid a DGU other than allow assault on my person, so I really am between a rock and hard place in the new scheme of things.

 

[Bushman]

Then premeditation could be argued, an attorney can get the documentation should the need arise but I don't think I'd preemptively do it.

Yeah I don't think it's premeditation to ask what the risk of your death is from an assault. You don't need documentation, you need an expert witness. My specialist has already told me absolutely no trauma, I didn't even ask. This was something he first told me when he first started treating me long ago. No martial arts, no bike riding, mountain climbing or anything that could cause any form of trauma since I am MUCH more susceptible than most to bleed to death, especially internally from a blow or a fall.

The point of the thread is to see if anyone knows of any case law that shows there is a lower bar for self defense from a blow, when you are at increased risk. I am much more in fear of my life from a regular assault than the average person due to my health issue.

 

[Bushman]

Having survived a fatal heart attack with concomitant neurological damage and subsequent cardiac issues, I would regard any serious physical threat as having a high potential for death or GBH. A punch to the head or chest could very likely kill me, and orthopedic injuries mean I can't run.
Recent events have shown that Soros/Dem DAs and AGs are on the side of the rioters, and any act of self defense by middle class White people will be prosecuted as a hate crime. THE LAW isn't there to protect the honest and productive, but to discourage any resistance to rule by the Mob. Any DGU would be used to justify riot and affray in addition to malicious prosecution.
I would do anything I could to avoid a DGU other than allow assault on my person, so I really am between a rock and hard place in the new scheme of things.

Yeah, tell me about it. The Kyle Rittenhouse thing is atrocious, as are the McCloskey prosecutions....

 

[Stomper]

I don't know but I have touretts so I'm covered.

 

[Phred]

I have been on blood thinners for eight years. I've had three heart attacks, seven stents, and lots of other crap. I do keep a full med kit with me in my car. And yeah, if I do have to lethally defend myself against some socialist nut case that's about to kick me in the head, I think I'd have a good case. A kick or a blow to my chest could take me out. Even if he was unarmed, his physical actions could kill me. Therefore, I would/should be able to protect myself with lethal force. My 2 cents.

 

[Bushman]

Then premeditation could be argued, an attorney can get the documentation should the need arise but I don't think I'd preemptively do it.

Dude you're really reaching. You have NO idea what you are talking about or what premeditation is. Using your logic then even carrying a gun is premeditation.

Educate yourself just a little and acting like you're an attorney when you clearly don't even understand what premeditation is.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/12/a-punch-to-the-head-is-potential-deadly-force/#ixzz6fFzbpeg2
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

From onepunchhomicide.com:

Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg of King County, which includes Seattle, Washington, says King County has four to six one punch homicides every year. If King County's one punch homicide rate is average for the U.S., which is impossible to tell because no one in the U.S., including the FBI, keeps statistics on the subject, then the U.S. has between 500 and 1,000 one punch homicides every year. Although this isn't a huge number, it has other implications. Most single punches don't result in a death, but for every death by one punch, how many other people experience serious injuries, including brain damage, because of one punch – 10, 20, 50, 100, or more?

Here is a well known case of one fatal punch from July of this year (2014):

LIVONIA, Mich. (AP) — A well-respected veteran soccer referee's life was cut short by a punch delivered during a Detroit-area men's league game.
John Bieniewicz, 44, died on July 1, two days after a player struck him at a community park in Livonia.

The standard for the use of deadly force is that you reasonably believe that you are defending yourself from force that can kill or severely injure you. Once you know that a punch can kill or severely injure you, you can explain to a jury why, as a reasonable person, you were forced to threaten or use deadly force to defend yourself or others.

You do not have to allow yourself to be beaten before you defend yourself with deadly force; but you have to be able to reasonably explain why you understood that you were under the threat of potentially deadly force.

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to s

 

[Bushman]

I have been on blood thinners for eight years. I've had three heart attacks, seven stents, and lots of other crap. I do keep a full med kit with me in my car. And yeah, if I do have to lethally defend myself against some socialist nut case that's about to kick me in the head, I think I'd have a good case. A kick or a blow to my chest could take me out. Even if he was unarmed, his physical actions could kill me. Therefore, I would/should be able to protect myself with lethal force. My 2 cents.

I think an old frail person has a different legal standard than a young, fit martial artist. Disparity of force comes into play here according to Ayoob. My doctor warned me not to participate in any activities that subject me to possible trauma because I can very easily bleed to death. He specifically noted no fighting, no boxing or martial arts, mountain biking or rock climbing...

While people have been killed, even here in Seattle as recently as a few years ago with a single punch to the face, I am FAR more susceptible, as are you, to it being a fatal blow than the vast majority of people.

In reality it is reasonable for a person in our condition to be in more fear for our lives from such attacks. As we know for a fact the implications a single blow has for us. The odds are higher that such a blow would be fatal.

 

[titsonritz]

Dude you're really reaching. You have NO idea what you are talking about or what premeditation is. Using your logic then even carrying a gun is premeditation.

I guess that wasn't covered in post #31.

 

[Bushman]

I guess that wasn't covered in post #31.

Welcome to the ignore list. The colossal ignorance of your comment is astounding. It's like a guy in a wheelchair asking if there is a different standard of self defense since he has a disability, then here you come claiming that's premeditation like he's plotting to murder someone specific. What a genius argument. Stop practicing law without a license. You're not cut out for it. "premeditation could be argued" for asking what the standard of self defense is when you have a life threatening disability that makes you more susceptible to death from a single blow than your average person per your doctor....

As another example, it's like saying it's premeditation to get a CCW, have and carry a gun, or go over self defense laws in a CCW class. It's all premeditation for murder using your poorly thought out comments stated as if they are facts with your high school diploma....

 

[titsonritz]

Welcome to the ignore list. No time for your nonsense.

Right back at you.

 

[cigars]

Oy. Come on people.